Reply With Quote
Why would they cry about saving this americans life when theyve been crying about the 4 american lives lost during Benghazi
Republicans are outraged that President Barack Obama authorized a prisoner exchange with the Taliban for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl — who has been held captive since 2009 — and that they plan to use the exchange against Democrats in the upcoming election.
The news of the prisoner exchange — in which Sgt. Bergdahl was swapped for Afghan detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay — surprised many Republicans because, they claim, it violated a law Obama signed last year requiring the defense secretary to notify congressional committees 30 days before arranging for a transfer of prisoners.
When he signed the law, however, President Obama issued a signing statement in which he contended that the notification requirement was an uncons utional infringement on his powers as commander-in-chief.
“Due to a near-term opportunity to save Sergeant Bergdahl’s life, we moved as quickly as possible,” a senior administration officialtold The Washington Post. “The administration determined that given these unique and exigent cir stances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement.”
One possible reason the president chose not to notify lawmakers is that last time he attempted to negotiate Sgt. Bergdahl’s release, Republicans both formally and informally blocked all efforts to do so.
In addition to using congressional oversight, special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman was told by Republican leadership that negotiating an exchange of Sgt. Bergdahl that involved detainees from Guantanamo Bay would be the president’s “Willie Horton moment,” a reference to the infamous “Revolving Door” advertisement that George H.W. Bush campaign used to make 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis look “soft” on crime
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/0...e+Raw+Story%29
The Negro -SLAPS the less Repugs.
My guess is that a VAST majority of US military and US citizens will poll as supporting bringing US POW home, as they already vastly support emptying/closing GITMO, which now has 3 less torture victims.
We'll hear the Repugs whining about "lawless", "imperial", "impeachable" The Negro
Why would they cry about saving this americans life when theyve been crying about the 4 american lives lost during Benghazi
There is background buzz from guys that served with him that he deserted with the intention of joining the Taliban. The POW aspect could be a big charade.
This is from that radical rag CNN.
(CNN) -- The sense of pride expressed by officials of the Obama administration at the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is not shared by many of those who served with him -- veterans and soldiers who call him a deserter whose "selfish act" ended up costing the lives of better men.
"I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on," said former Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."
Vierkant said Bergdahl needs to not only acknowledge his actions publicly but face a military trial for desertion under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
A reporter asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel Sunday whether Bergdahl had left his post without permission or deserted -- and, if so, whether he would be punished. Hagel didn't answer directly. "Our first priority is assuring his well-being and his health and getting him reunited with his family," he said. "Other cir stances that may develop and questions, those will be dealt with later."
Following his release from five years of captivity in Afghanistan on Saturday, Bergdahl was transferred to a military hospital in Germany.
A senior Defense official said Bergdahl's "reintegration process" will include "time for him to tell his story, decompress, and to reconnect with his family through telephone calls and video conferences."
Said Bergdahl's former squad leader, Greg Leatherman: "I'm pleased to see him returned safely. From experience I hope that he receives adequate reintegration counseling. I believe that an investigation should take place as soon as healthcare professionals deem him fit to endure one."
Another senior Defense official said Bergdahl will not likely face any punishment. "Five years is enough," he told CNN on condition of anonymity.
Questions surround the cir stances of Bergdahl's disappearance. Conflicting details have since emerged about how the militants managed to capture Bergdahl. Published accounts have varied widely, from claims he walked off the post to another that he was grabbed from a latrine.
According to first-hand accounts from soldiers in his platoon, Bergdahl, while on guard duty, shed his weapons and walked off the observation post with nothing more than a compass, a knife, water, a digital camera, and a diary.
At least six soldiers were killed in subsequent searches for Bergdahl, and many soldiers in his platoon said attacks seemed to increase against the United States in Paktika Province in the days and weeks following his disappearance.
Many of Bergdahl's fellow troops -- from the seven or so who knew him best in his squad, to the larger group that comprised the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division -- told CNN that they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl's disappearance and the efforts to recapture him. Some were willing to dismiss that do ent in hopes that the truth would come out about a soldier who they now fear is being hailed as a hero, while the men who lost their lives looking for him are ignored.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 06-02-2014 at 06:56 AM.
If the above is true, this is clearly not the way to create comradery amongst the kids that give up their rights as an American citizens by choice of profession.
Not a wise choice at all...
if the guy deserted, then he'll get court martialed.
his town + region are SUPER excited to get him back.
Why would you trade 4 high level Taliban members for this guy? It doesn't make sense.
This is another one of those jumping the shark moments for Republicans. They still don't realize you can't oppose EVERYTHING someone from the opposite party does without looking ridiculous. The GOP has still not learned how to pick its battles.
How high level are they?
What did they do?
from another thread:
Khairullah Khairkhwa, for one, was an original member of the Taliban – someone so senior that Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar apparently trusted him personally. He was, at various times, a defense minister for the Taliban and a governor of Herat Province. Mohammed Fazl, meanwhile, has been accused of war crimes related to the slaughter of Shiites. The others include another Taliban-era governor, an intelligence chief, and a security official.
really? because trading 5 terrorists for a deserter sounds like such a good idea...
I agree, and though I disagree with this trade, it is the wrong battle to make. What president is clean of no signing statements, or following up on a signing statement?
Obama's signing statement on the law he signed clearly pointed out he disagree with some restrictions...
Now I don't like to be in any position defending Obama, but I do when it comes to the fact that the law should have never been written to tie the hands of the executive branch.
No apparently not.
5 years in captivity is enough. No charges.
The guy put his fellow soldiers in danger while looking for him. This is not good for a group that is supposed to look out for each other. Bergdahl is not the only soldier who had reservations about Afghanistan, but they did not slink away.
This is sounding more like a big miscalculation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...tml?tid=pm_pop
Last edited by pgardn; 06-03-2014 at 12:21 AM.
If he was a deserter, then I say execute him. However, to my knowledge, that is a su ion with no good evidence.
Can we all say innocent till proven guilty?
What makes you think there will be a trial?
did you read the article?
I am making the point that the allegation of him deserting may be wrong. I don't know if the people close at hand will decide for a trial or not. I never made that assertion. Why do you think I did?
I re-read the article to see if I missed a valid fact. Don't know why you asked. Is the article 100% accurate?
You said if he is a deserter execute him.
So you would do this WITHOUT A TRIAL? Seriously?
Yes, IF...
If he is a deserter, which some people do claim. I am neutral on that idea. There will be some looking into that allegations and either dismiss the notion of a trial, or decide to see if one is warranted.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how a statement like mine should make one conclude that I think a trial will occur.
If a trial occurs, and if he is found guilty, then execute him.
Desertion is such a giant non-crime. Joining the armed services is essentially modern day indentured servitude.
In other words, its morally reprehensible.
Then don't join or take the oath.
Real life Homeland?
NPR had report that 6 us soldiers were killed trying to find him.
You said if he is a deserter kill him. Then you said innocent until proven guilty.
And none of this implies a trial? Ok... Seriously WC? Really?
So you have seen evidence that he left his post because he got disoriented and just wandered off? Until the military puts forth a statement claiming something like this I will go with what his fellow soldiers have said. No trial, no nothing, just what we have been given to this point. There is no evidence he was ambushed at his post at all. Certainly that would have been given by now.
The military must know something we don't because a soldier does not leave his post of his on volition and get people killed looking for you.
Look, These men/kids who join the military give up some of their basic rights as a citizen to serve. They may not like a conflict and pay a large price by joining. In many of these cases it is obvious they are fighting for each other, not some cause old guys in suits decide is in the best interest of the country. The solider has joined sacrificing an enormous amount of personal freedom.
If you think we should just let this pass you don't understand service. And as of right now it will do just this unless the press keeps digging.
It's no problem getting fellow soldiers killed looking for you after desertion...
Well ok then. This is not morally reprehensible?
Our first priority is assuring his well-being and his health and getting him reunited with his family. Other cir stances that may develop and questions, those will be dealt with later," Hagel said.
From the LA Times.http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...ry.html#page=1
The military now plans extensive interviews with those on duty with him.
Pushing and digging by the press again serves its purpose.
My God. Yes, it implies a trial... IF... those deciding such matter think he may have. What was said in the media may have no merit whatsoever.
My God.
What's so hard to understand about IF?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
